From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32285 invoked by alias); 19 Oct 2009 21:28:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 32276 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Oct 2009 21:28:23 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 21:28:19 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F8D8105BB; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 21:28:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42C9010576; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 21:28:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Mzzm5-0000zr-NT; Mon, 19 Oct 2009 17:28:17 -0400 Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 21:28:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Snyder Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: Seems like a bug in target_read_stack / dcache_xfer_memory? Message-ID: <20091019212817.GB3401@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Snyder , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" References: <4ADB9759.7060305@vmware.com> <20091018225134.GA30546@caradoc.them.org> <4ADCA53C.2080703@vmware.com> <20091019183724.GA17923@caradoc.them.org> <4ADCBF6B.9050309@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4ADCBF6B.9050309@vmware.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-10/txt/msg00457.txt.bz2 On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:35:07PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > * The requested location isn't cached, so we return zero. Simple: that isn't the interface of dcache_xfer_memory. It should fill the cache. Trace it down to dcache_read_line. > The "until" command tries to read beyond the top of stack, > which is fine for the running process and fine for the core > file, but for some reason in this instance wants to go into > dcache, where nothing currently should be cached. Beyond the *top*? And there's something mapped there? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery